Yep.. the great fiction of almost all business owners, where their personal cars are expensed. But that is no advantage for an electric car. All cars get that same treatment. And I consider it low class to call it out in your promo materials.

Yep.. the great fiction of almost all business owners, where their personal cars are expensed. But that is no advantage for an electric car. All cars get that same treatment. And I consider it low class to call it out in your promo materials.

And so? They are talking about the "true" cost of ownership. The business tax credit does help reduce the cost of ownership. Why shouldn't the calculator include it?

Additionally, the section describing savings associated with driving an electric vs a gas car is separate and clearly marked so.

I don't see how that's tacky at all. Unless someone is a small business owner who does their own taxes there is no reason that they *should* know about something like this. For someone who was thinking about buying a $45k car and runs their own business, something like this could bring it into the realm of possibility.

And so? They are talking about the "true" cost of ownership. The business tax credit does help reduce the cost of ownership. Why shouldn't the calculator include it?

Because if you can write off a lease, you already know you can. And it would be the same for any car you buy. It's not a differentiating feature, unlike other things on that page.

Then again, they don't really highlight that you really need to have a 240V outlet available if you drive any appreciable distance every day, given the comments on the forums from actual owners about charging off a regular plug. So their cost calculations should include installing that stuff too.

The only thing on that page that's useful is the gas vs. electricity calculator. Of course, I imagine it's the same for a lot of people as it is for me, my cost per kWh isn't constant. I tried to figure out my electric bill the other day, and there's like 5 line items per month... like WTF. You'd still have to drive a lot to have the electric car end up ahead. (And get $10k from the gov't up front)

Boneman wrote:

I don't see how that's tacky at all. Unless someone is a small business owner who does their own taxes there is no reason that they *should* know about something like this. For someone who was thinking about buying a $45k car and runs their own business, something like this could bring it into the realm of possibility.

And so? They are talking about the "true" cost of ownership. The business tax credit does help reduce the cost of ownership. Why shouldn't the calculator include it?

Because if you can write off a lease, you already know you can. And it would be the same for any car you buy. It's not a differentiating feature, unlike other things on that page.

And?

Once again. The page title is "True Cost of Ownership". It is supposed to be a page of what the "true" (airquotes, because clearly true here refers to marketing speak) cost of ownership is. I don't think it is to Tesla's discredit if it is what it claims to be, and not what some people want it to be.

The best way to look at it is what a salesman would say in a dealership. Does anyone believe a salesman would NOT point out that a person, if they have a business, would have a lower true cost of ownership on the car because of tax credits?

All that being said, as I said before, I don't like how Tesla/Musk have promoted the $500 figure in other avenues. But to their credit, it did make headlines, and probably has a lot more people checking out and seeing if they can afford the MotorTrend car of the year.

It's a "true cost" of ownership if you abuse tax deductions to lease personal cars under the business name. Almost all small business owners do this for their own,a s well as their spouse's cars, and while I wouldn't rat one out, it's till illegal. Calling this out a savings is bullshit. And a person who has a small business is probably already doing this, so adding it into the savings is gilding the lily.

It's a "true cost" of ownership if you abuse tax deductions to lease personal cars under the business name. Almost all small business owners do this for their own,a s well as their spouse's cars, and while I wouldn't rat one out, it's till illegal. Calling this out a savings is bullshit. And a person who has a small business is probably already doing this, so adding it into the savings is gilding the lily.

So you think a marketing page should not mention this?

This is largely driven by the fact that Tesla is not allowed to sell cars in many states across the nations, because of BS dealer protecting regulations.

Unlike Ford, GM, etc. their employees cannot tell customers about things like tax advantages that are available to them. Their only avenue is the Internet.

Tesla is not doing anything other car sellers don't do (again, do you really think a salesman at a dealership WILL NOT point out that someone could save money on the business tax credit?).

The only difference is that Tesla is doing it on the Internet (and makes it ridiculously easy to dial that down to 0 and see what your cost is, if it doesn't apply to you). And again, Tesla is largely forced to do this because of incumbent dealership protecting laws in most states which prevent their employees from mentioning this to customers when they come to a Tesla store.

What I find funny is that they do any of this at all. I guess there are lots of people stretching to buy their first luxury cars to get one of these or something? Questions I'd expect to see are, what are the MSRP, residual and MF.

I wouldn't expect many people buying a $100k car to do any sort of affordability calculations on a car web page. Frankly it turns me off as a buyer, because that looks like huckster-ism, which isn't something I'd expect on a luxury purchase. (Honestly, I chuckled when I got to that page in the configurator) Though, as I've mentioned, the gas vs. electricity calculator is something I would expect them to have, and probably something they should market heavily.

I wouldn't expect many people buying a $100k car to do any sort of affordability calculations .

And this is exactly why they do it. You keep calling it a 100k car, when it really is hard to get there, and most buy a far cheaper version.

They are basically doing what you are doing, but in a direction more favorable to them. Without outright lying. In other words, marketing.

Do I like it? No. But I don't like any marketing in general, and Tesla has made their marketing BS far more transparent than most other car companies, and almost certainly far easier to navigate than dealing with a salesman at a dealership.

What I find funny is that they do any of this at all. I guess there are lots of people stretching to buy their first luxury cars to get one of these or something? Questions I'd expect to see are, what are the MSRP, residual and MF.

I could see that being the case. Luxury cars generally do not appeal to me. I am fine with my Kia Rio5. However, were I a single man with the job and income I have, you're damn straight I'd be stretching into a Tesla, courtesy of my LLC.

What I find funny is that they do any of this at all. I guess there are lots of people stretching to buy their first luxury cars to get one of these or something? Questions I'd expect to see are, what are the MSRP, residual and MF.

I wouldn't expect many people buying a $100k car to do any sort of affordability calculations on a car web page. Frankly it turns me off as a buyer, because that looks like huckster-ism, which isn't something I'd expect on a luxury purchase. (Honestly, I chuckled when I got to that page in the configurator) Though, as I've mentioned, the gas vs. electricity calculator is something I would expect them to have, and probably something they should market heavily.

I'm pretty sure they're not doing it as part of a sales/advertising effort. Recall their planned volume for the Model S is 20K this year, and 30K the next (since they're a public company, I expect they're truthful here), and even if they get a lot more orders than they expect, ramping up would take quite a while. Bottom line: As successful as they are, They're still very much a tiny manufacturer (and a single-model one this year; the Roadster isn't being produced anymore).

That being so, I think that Web page isn't for potential buyers at all. It's to keep mindshare in the wider public, and let people play with it & say.. "Hmm... can't buy one now, but it's not a completely wild dream any more. In a few of years when they have $30K-$40K base-model cars.." (which they do expect to make in that timeframe).

That helps gets away from the "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" end of the market, and is how'll they'll get to the next segment of customers, 2-3 years from now.

They also need to keep reminding the public of the (real or perceived) specific advantages of electrics: The lower operating cost, use of HOV lanes etc. (some of the details on that page are certainly tacky -- valuing a person's time at $100/hr means $200K after taxes, and I don't know of anyone who specifcally drives to a gas station to fill up rather than using one en route, especially not people who value their time).

That being so, I think that Web page isn't for potential buyers at all. It's to keep mindshare in the wider public, and let people play with it & say.. "Hmm... can't buy one now, but it's not a completely wild dream any more. In a few of years when they have $30K-$40K base-model cars.." (which they do expect to make in that timeframe).

That helps gets away from the "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" end of the market, and is how'll they'll get to the next segment of customers, 2-3 years from now.

Bingo. They continually broadcast their plans for targeting a 30-40k car. They've said that since they launched the Roadster. This keeps the idea in the back of the public's mind.

Most people won't and can't buy a 100k car. A 30k car however, is within the majority of the working public means.

They also need to keep reminding the public of the (real or perceived) specific advantages of electrics: The lower operating cost, use of HOV lanes etc. (some of the details on that page are certainly tacky -- valuing a person's time at $100/hr means $200K after taxes, and I don't know of anyone who specifcally drives to a gas station to fill up rather than using one en route, especially not people who value their time).

While I don't value my free time at $100/hr, I have to make specific trips out of my way to fill up at the gas station. I live on one side of the highway, the nearest gas station (and I don't even know how far I might need to go in the opposite way to find one) is on the other side of the highway and in a busy shopping area. While I sometimes know that I'll be passing a gas station on the way to my destination, I often don't. And of those stations, many are not 24h or don't sell diesel, so they don't help me at 10pm in my diesel car

I don't drive to the gas station and back home, but I do make a point to leave ~15 minutes early to deal with the fact that I'll have to drive to the station, deal with traffic, and then drive back to within a couple hundred yards of my apartment before I actually start to head towards my destination. Or I'll drive out of my way to fill up when I'm returning home.

Well, scratch that, Costco gas stations close when the store closes. I meant other than Costco.

Lol, it doesn't come up too often, but I know where most of them are around here (Gulf Station near me, a couple of Mobil stations in the next town... plus a few others that don't have diesel). Maybe... 1 in 6 stations? Or less. It's often just the ones that are near the highway.

Forum ate my post. Probably for the best. You guys get the short, short version.

EVs are luxury-economy. Economy-economy won't be beating a used Cavalier anytime soon. Downside is you're driving a deathtrap shitbox Cavalier.

So. Given that EVs are luxury-economy, I prefer the Tesla to the Leaf for range reasons. Short version: the Leaf is "barely enough" while the Tesla gives me "tooling around" range. Not cross-country, but day-trip stuff.

I feel like the "luxury" in "luxury-economy" demands Tesla range. The Leaf seems too single-purpose commuter that could be replaced by a used car. Thoughts?

EVs are luxury-economy. Economy-economy won't be beating a used Cavalier anytime soon. Downside is you're driving a deathtrap shitbox Cavalier.

What you probably get now if you're not money constrained but have no desire to go luxury is probably a new or not that old Focus or thereabouts. There's a certain luxury to being able to get a new, safe, reliable car with MP3 support and good fuel economy and not have that be a stretch financially. When EVs with reasonable range get close enough to that price for the gas savings to make up the difference, we're off to the races. I think we'll probably see that this decade, maybe sooner.

I feel like the "luxury" in "luxury-economy" demands Tesla range. The Leaf seems too single-purpose commuter that could be replaced by a used car. Thoughts?

Depends where you live. Getting that carpool sticker would trump any range concerns here. For a lot of people, it just be the commuter car, and you'd have a couple of other cars for other uses (that are probably nicer cars than the leaf)

Arbelec wrote:

Son, I am disappoint. I've been in the Bay area for 3 days now, and I've not seen a single Telsa yet. Company must be failing

That being so, I think that Web page isn't for potential buyers at all. It's to keep mindshare in the wider public, and let people play with it & say.. "Hmm... can't buy one now, but it's not a completely wild dream any more. In a few of years when they have $30K-$40K base-model cars.." (which they do expect to make in that timeframe).

That helps gets away from the "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" end of the market, and is how'll they'll get to the next segment of customers, 2-3 years from now.

Bingo. They continually broadcast their plans for targeting a 30-40k car. They've said that since they launched the Roadster. This keeps the idea in the back of the public's mind.

Most people won't and can't buy a 100k car. A 30k car however, is within the majority of the working public means.

People might as well opt for the Nissan Leaf if they was an electric car around $30,000.

Not quite. That $30K-$40K (before government subsidy) car refers to a compact-class model, without Model S performance, a few years from now. By which time, a Nissan Leaf S equivalent will cost less than the $30K before subsidy it costs now.

Incidentally, the improved Leaf was just announced for the UK as well, and interestingly, Nissan's offering an lower-upfront-cost option to buy the car but lease the battery, see here.

I feel like the "luxury" in "luxury-economy" demands Tesla range. The Leaf seems too single-purpose commuter that could be replaced by a used car. Thoughts?

Depends where you live. Getting that carpool sticker would trump any range concerns here. For a lot of people, it just be the commuter car, and you'd have a couple of other cars for other uses (that are probably nicer cars than the leaf)

Arbelec wrote:

Son, I am disappoint. I've been in the Bay area for 3 days now, and I've not seen a single Telsa yet. Company must be failing

So, now that I sold the R8, and I'm officially looking for something, I scheduled a test drive in the Model S to give it a fair shake next Tuesday.

I went through their product configurator, and the Model S is going to have to be beyond astounding to justify the current prices. A performance model, with what I'd consider standard options (as in no 3rd row seats, and without the external charger, which would be required, IMO) is $106k *after* the $7500 rebate. At least that's what I think the web site says. That's RS7 money territory, which is a 560hp beast with way more luxury features.

So I looked at pricing for the base model with 0 options... $63k, after $7500 rebate. Still insane, as that car would have less features than getting like a G37 or something. I will also ask them if the sale price is before or after the rebate, as it's a bit unclear as to how that works, because sales tax on $7500 in CA isn't 0.

It does look like some of the interior options are nice. I'm concerned that the configurator only shows a beige headliner. That'd be a deal breaker, as not having an option to have a black headliner in a sporty car is a complete miss. (What I'd really want for the kind of money that car costs is an alcantara headliner, which I think are pimp).

So I think I'm going in a bit pre-disposed against the car, but I am investing the time to give them a chance, and that's not nothing.

If anyone else is bored, go play with the configurator on their site, and see if you can tell if the quoted price is inclusive or exclusive of the $7500. I'd like to be wrong in my assessment, as ~$95k after all the rebates is at least far more sane than $105k for that car. Also try optioning up a car and gape at the price.

I'm pretty sure that the Performance model comes with Alcantera headliner. The other models come with a nice fabric. It's tan that looks good with the remainder of the interior black, if that's what you like.

You pay sales tax on the full amount, then get $7500 back later. You won't get the sales tax on the $7500 back.

An external charger is most certainly not necessary, nor the twin chargers, unless you really need fast charging at home, e.g. Back from a long trip and need to turn around and be off again ASAP. Doesn't really happen in my life. I've been fine with 40A charging, which is already faster than other plugin vehicles can manage.

The trouble with the Model S is that ICE cars feel so primitive afterwards. There's really no going back, even if there are some good deals on top of the line horse buggies.